The con of conscription
By George F. Smith
web posted December 3, 2001
No organization has done more for the federal government than
al-Qaida. What other group could free it of so much restraint?
Our elected officials swear to support and defend the U. S.
Constitution as part of their oath of office. We, the people,
through the Constitution, delegated to Congress the power "To
declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal . . . [and] to
raise and support Armies." Nowhere does the Constitution say
how it should raise and support the military, but it does provide
clear guidelines.
One of the cracks in the foundation of our early nation was the
abomination of slavery, "a system based on using the enforced
labor of other people," according to the Encarta dictionary.
Government eventually abolished it outright with the thirteenth
amendment, though the Bill of Rights had made it legally
groundless all along. The amendment doesn't just outlaw slavery
in the antebellum sense -- it prohibits any form of compulsory
servitude, except as punishment for a crime.
Thus, the Constitution says to Congress, "Raise an army, but do
it with volunteers."
So how is it we've had a military draft?
Mostly, by means of the same justification given for other
intrusions on our liberty: crisis.
Wars threaten the existence of the state. They must be won at all
costs. Until fairly recently in human history, one of the
requirements for winning was a large number of ground troops. If
those troops can't be acquired voluntarily, the state forces young
men into the armed services at the point of a gun.
Of course, it's never presented in such raw terms. We usually
hear talk about the privilege young men have to serve their
country. If they should happen to miss that message, it's Uncle
Sam's job to convince them with a letter of greetings. There is no
ugliness if we don't use ugly words.
Serving one's country is also regarded as patriotic. But it all
depends on what the country's doing. If it's fighting an aggressor
to preserve our freedom, then the cause is just and will attract
volunteers. Serving when the cause is obscure or unjust amounts
to blind nationalism.
In a country that values freedom, politicians carry the burden of
ensuring we don't get involved in armed conflicts that aren't a
threat to our national security. Acting as the world's cop has
hardly kept us out of trouble.
It's been argued that even in "just" wars, enlistments wouldn't
always meet manpower needs, and therefore a draft is the only
solution. Why not boost the pay for volunteers? When private
firms need additional manpower, they don't resort to hiring at
gunpoint. Are we appalled at being defended by mercenaries?
We deal with mercenaries everyday -- career military personnel
are mercenaries, as is anyone in the business community who
works for money. But such people are usually called
professionals. Would you rather be defended by professionals or
low-wage draftees? If anyone deserves top pay, it's a soldier
willing to kill and risk his or her life to defend our freedom.
Congressman Ron Paul has been an outspoken opponent of the
draft and has advocated ditching the selective service and giving
the funds instead to the Veterans Administration, which is
typically underfunded. "Even the military agrees that the Selective
Service System is an ineffective hold-over from a different age,"
Rep. Paul said earlier this year.
And yet the Selective Service System web site states: "By having
the names and addresses of men 18 through 25 years old on file
with the SSS, America remains ready to face any threat."
Though we've had no draft since 1973, many are calling for
conscription now -- and not just for the military. Statists want to
force every youth in this country to serve in some capacity and
are clamoring to join in the power grab of the current crisis.
Those unfit for the military or who qualify as conscientious
objectors would be sent grazing somewhere in the homeland. It
shouldn't be surprising -- altruists have been singing the servitude
song for all eternity. Getting the government involved adds
legalized force to their refrain.
"[T]he most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral,"
President Reagan once said. "[A] draft or draft registration
destroys the very values that our society is committed to
defending."
Anyone who champions freedom will oppose the initiation of
physical force in all forms. Conscription promotes the indignity of
slavery and makes a mockery of our Constitution. "Not only is
the notion of involuntary servitude at odds with our system of law
and tradition of liberty, " Rep. Paul said, "but it is not in keeping
with the needs and demands of a 21st Century defense
program."
References
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr050301.htm -
End the Draft - Ron Paul
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press99/pr090999win.htm -
House votes to end draft - Ron Paul
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm
- A Republic, if you can keep it - Ron Paul
http://civilliberty.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%
3A%2F%2Fwww.aynrand.org%2Fno_servitude%2F - Ayn
Rand Institute's Campaign against Servitude
http://www.sss.gov/press-7-11-01.htm - Selective Service
George Smith is full-time freelance writer with a special interest
in liberty issues and screenwriting. His articles have appeared on
Ether Zone, and in the Gwinnett Daily Post, Writer's Yearbook,
Creative Loafing, and Goal Magazine. He has a web site for
screenwriters and other writers at
http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/atl/g/f/gfs543/
Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com